A law professor in South Dakota where the case started yesterday said he isn't aware of the state law banning disparaging remarks about perishable agricultural products ever being tested in court. Other attorneys and media law specialists are saying the lawsuit may be more about public relations than law.

Even the founders' son, Nick Roth, told me yesterday the suit might give the company a way to plead the broader case in the court of public opinion of the safety and wholesomeness of "finely, textured lean beef."

The hardest things will be proving there were lies told knowingly about the product and process of making it and to show what was in the hearts of the ABC staffers and others BPI is suing like the guy who coined the term "pink slime" in the first place. Did they really set out to harm the company or did it just happen as they told their stories?